Aniket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16746 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Aniket Kumar Son of Srikant Sharma Resident of Village - Patut, P.S. - Ranitalab, District - Patna 2.
Harshit Raj @ Harshit Kumar Son of Umakant Sharma Resident of Village - Patut, P.S. - Ranitalab, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP For the informant :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv Mr. Rajesh Roy, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh and learned APP for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory application with respect to petitioner no. 01.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. The petitioner No. 2 seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) (corresponding section 307 of IPC), 119(2) (corresponding section 327 of IPC), 292 (corresponding section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16746 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 2/3 of IPC is 506), 3(5) (corresponding section of IPC is 34) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 27 Arms Act.
5. It is next submitted that the petitioner no. 02 has antecedent of three cases and has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant with an allegation that on account of dispute relating to measurement of land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the petitioner is alleged to have fired but then from perusal of the allegation alleged in the FIR, it would manifest no one was injured which amply demonstrates that in order to give seriousness to the case the said allegation was alleged, when specific allegation of causing knife injury is against Aniket Kumar and Umakant Sharma. It is submitted that since petitioner carries antecedent as such the informant implicated in the case.
6. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application but then are not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that on account of firing, no one was injured.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16746 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025 3/3 within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Ranitalab P. S. Case No.27/2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) krishnakant/- U T